AFTON, Va. - It's 4:15 in the morning, and Sister Andrea Jaeger is already in her full habit, the first prayer session of the day behind her. God speaks to her all the time, tells her what His plan is, but these early wake-ups, this is all Jaeger's idea. She has her brown leather Bible next to her - her name is inscribed on it - and so much to do: sick children to visit, a foundation to run, vows to keep.
Why sleep in when you can do good deeds, and go for a contemplative, one-hour run, too?

"I just love the serenity of the morning," Jaeger says. "The phone doesn't ring. Nobody else is awake. It makes me so excited. Here comes another day!"

Sister Andrea Jaeger is 41. She is three months into her new life as a Dominican nun in the Episcopal Church, and almost a quarter-century beyond her short-lived stint as the biggest sensation in women's tennis, a ball-bashing baseliner with waist-length pigtails that swung with every groundstroke, and braces that befit her teenage station.

Jaeger is an alternative energy source, fueled by Providence. She has a girlish voice and a big laugh, and an amped-up signoff to her cell phone voicemail ("God's love and blessings to you"). She can speak eloquently for 20 minutes in answer to a single question, and often does.

The answers always come back to her personal relationship with God, a journey that has transformed her from tennis brat into humanitarian; umpire-baiter into child-saver; conflicted prodigy into devout caregiver, all without forgetting how to be playful.

During a recent visit to the children's cancer wing of a Cincinnati hospital, Jaeger led sing-alongs and brought lightness, and roared with laughter when a little girl called her "a fun nun." She jokes about how it used to take three minutes to get dressed when she just wore sweats. Now it takes a half-hour.

"I finally understand why women were spending all that time in the bathroom," she says.

Jaeger is here in the Shenandoah Mountains, visiting with her writer friend Rita Mae Brown, having traveled from her home in Hesperus, Colo. Brown, a mentor and kindred spirit whom Jaeger first met when Brown was a tour regular as the partner of Martina Navratilova, is helping her with a children's book. Staying in a cottage at a bed-and-breakfast, Jaeger steps on her flowing black habit as she heads upstairs, briefly stumbling.

"I still have to get used to wearing this," she says with an embarrassed smile.

* * *

A first-generation American, Jaeger was a most improbable tennis wunderkind. She was raised in Chicago by her German-born parents, who came to the U.S. in 1956. Her coach/father, Roland, was a former boxer and bricklayer who ran a saloon called The Postillion Lounge. She started tennis at eight, and thanks to inexhaustible energy and abundant athleticism, took to it quickly, becoming a top-ranked junior by the time she was 13, turning professional at 14. She entered qualifying play in her first tournament in Las Vegas, a Futures event for up-and-coming players. She won 13 straight matches and captured the first of her 10 titles.
Jaeger swiftly ascended the ranks of the WTA tour, all the way up to No. 2, at 16. She was a relentless 5-5, 130-pounder who was pushed hard by her father, mouthed off to linespeople and was a regular in the final weekends of Grand Slams. The only trouble, according to Jaeger, is that she felt alone and adrift in the cutthroat culture she suddenly found herself in. She lived with a terrible secret: she did not want to be No. 1 in the world. She did not want to hone a killer instinct, or become an all-time great. As much as she loved to play, to dive for balls and set up points and reach a level few players ever get near, she did not want to do it at someone else's expense. Her conflict ran so deep that she says she intentionally lost a number of big matches, Grand Slam finals included.

When Billie Jean King expressed interest in coaching her, Jaeger wasn't even tempted.

"I saw her drive to be the best, and I did not have that drive to be the best," Jaeger says. "I know if I worked with her I would've been No. 1 in the world. I know it, but it would've come at too great a cost. I was never going to tell people what God wanted me to do - that I wanted to be of service to others."

After losing to Jaeger for the first time, Chris Evert approached her in the locker room and said, "Now that you've beaten me, will your father let me be your friend?"

Wary of Evert's motives, and her hyper-competitiveness, Jaeger replied, "This has nothing to do with my father. I don't want to be your friend."

So it went until the 1984 French Open, when Jaeger's shoulder went out, a chronic injury that had become far worse - and that would effectively end her career at 19 and ultimately require seven surgeries to repair. She had earned almost $1.4 million, but now the financial faucet was off. Her parents were devastated, Jaeger quite the opposite.

"I knew it was God saying, 'OK, now we're going to go help kids together,'" Jaeger says. She smiles. "It was an easy transition from professional athletics to charity, because it was like, 'Get me out of here.' It was such a relief I couldn't live my truth on the circuit."

Jaeger sold her Mercedes-Benz and passed the money around to worthy causes, supported charities and then stepped it up, launching her Little Star Foundation in 1990, along with close friend, Heidi Bookout. The mission of Little Star was to provide long-term help and support for children afflicted with cancer, and has since expanded to reach kids suffering from abuse, neglect and all manner of mistreatment and illness. By now Little Star has helped thousands, getting generous support from luminaries such as Mayor Bloomberg, Cindy Crawford, John McEnroe and Paul Newman. Jaeger herself has put $2 million in, including her entire pension and her investment portfolio.

"She follows her heart. She has always followed her heart. A lot of people don't have the strength to do that," says Jaeger's sister, Suzanne, 44, who played at Stanford and had a short turn on the tour.

Jaeger says that God has been directing her life, showing her the way, since she was a little girl. His message was never more pointed than it was last February, when she was on her way to work out on a stair-stepping machine when she says she could feel Jesus in her heart, inviting her to waltz with Him. She says she took a few spins, self-consciously, and said, "OK, I'm done." Her feeling was very strong, but she wasn't clear about the meaning of it until the next day - Feb. 4, 2006 - when she had a dream that she was in a convent with St. Catherine of Siena, a Dominican nun from the 14th century. St. Catherine was floating, beckoning, showing Jaeger the life she was to live.

Cindy Crawford was the first person she told. "It was a surprise, but not a shock. She has always been very, very devoted to her faith," Suzanne Jaeger says.

Andrea, who had earned an associate's degree in theology, found a Dominican order to study with, and began in April.

"At first I was a little apprehensive because of her celebrity status," says Father Kevin Pritchard, the priest who presides over the aspiring brothers and sisters in the Order. "But the way I looked at it, it was like a prince or merchant back in the Middle Ages, giving up everything to join our community. I think in a culture that worships celebrity and wealth what Sister Andrea is doing sends a powerful message."

Jaeger immersed herself in study and prayer, and was ordained Sept. 16, after she delivered a sermon at Pritchard's church in North Dakota. In one part of her message she said, "Everything great I received from my tennis career God gave me. He didn't take it away. He decided it was time for me to serve Him in a different way."

Sister Andrea Jaeger is officially still in the apprentice stage as a nun, but knows this is her calling. She will live a celibate life, serve God and keep helping children through her foundation.

As King says: "She has done so many good things for so many others since leaving tennis, and her journey continues today."

Wow... thanks for the update. I remember her vividly as a child. As quickly as her rose to fame, she vanished. Ever since then, there are quite a few stories of her charity and devotion to philanthropy.

Andrea probably touched and endeared by more people after her sports career than any athletes... ever.

She's what I call a *real* Christian, unlike the many others that talk to they're blue in the face and do little. Helping those kids with cancer, and giving them a little joy in the last few years of their life is really impressive.

She's what I call a *real* Christian, unlike the many others that talk to they're blue in the face and do little. Helping those kids with cancer, and giving them a little joy in the last few years of their life is really impressive.

Click to expand...

I respect what she's doing a whole lot.
But I'd respect her more if she was doing this kind of thing without needing to subscribe to a religion in order to do it.

But I'd respect her more if she was doing this kind of thing without needing to subscribe to a religion in order to do it.

Click to expand...

Why say something like this? I think it's rather callous.

Chances are if you were doing the same thing without subscribing to a religion, she'd probably respect you any way. I, for one, applaud the sincerity and vigor with which she pursues not only the humanity of her work, but the theology as well.

I think her motive and religous belief is both sincere and of the highest nature. I couldn't respect her any more. She gave away her fortune and followed what she believed. There aren't too many examples like hers any where in the world.

Chances are if you were doing the same thing without subscribing to a religion, she'd probably respect you any way. I, for one, applaud the sincerity and vigor with which she pursues not only the humanity of her work, but the theology as well.

I think her motive and religous belief is both sincere and of the highest nature. I couldn't respect her any more. She gave away her fortune and followed what she believed. There aren't too many examples like hers any where in the world.

Click to expand...

Sadly, she isn't following she believes, she's following what she's been indoctrinated into - no different from if she'd gone to Waco, or the Moonies. Ironically, what she's done is inhuman - in so far as what defines humanity is our capacity to think, and she's subscribed wholesale to a religous corporation. I'm genuinely and profoundly sad that she so lost touch with what's important that she had to go and co-opt an entire doctrine, however apparently laudable some of that institutions values may appear to be.

It wasn't a callous remark, it was a considered one. And I believe it is a genuine warning to parents who push their kids into sport creating a vacuum of life's other elements - and Ms Jaeger was relatively succesful in her tennis life. Some might think that becoming a nun is better than turning to drugs. At a psychological and philosophical level they are interchangeable.

Chances are if you were doing the same thing without subscribing to a religion, she'd probably respect you any way. I, for one, applaud the sincerity and vigor with which she pursues not only the humanity of her work, but the theology as well.

I think her motive and religous belief is both sincere and of the highest nature. I couldn't respect her any more. She gave away her fortune and followed what she believed. There aren't too many examples like hers any where in the world.

Click to expand...

I think the key word here is followed.
She followed something (religion) whose parameters and policies and beliefs were already set and defined, rather than create her own.

I view religions in much the same way as I view politics. People who subscribe to one political party or another generally adopt all of the policies and 'beliefs' of that party, rather than form their own independent, individual perspectives. The same occurs within religions - there are expectations and policies and beliefs that one must adopt and adhere to in order to belong. And when one adopts any policies or beliefs or principles that are not of their own independent creation, the beliefs, principles, etc. are not as strong or as solid. Sort of like doing something out of association and/or expectation rather than doing it because of a strong, sincere personal belief.
To do something because one believes that "it is God's will" to me is no different than to do something "because it is George Bush's will", or any other political leader.
To do something because it is ONE'S OWN will - not because it is any other's - that is what commands my respect.

If one possesses a strong and sincere enough personal belief in something, there is no need to join any sort of party or organization in order to pursue that belief.

Sadly, she isn't following she believes, she's following what she's been indoctrinated into - no different from if she'd gone to Waco, or the Moonies. Ironically, what she's done is inhuman - in so far as what defines humanity is our capacity to think, and she's subscribed wholesale to a religous corporation. I'm genuinely and profoundly sad that she so lost touch with what's important that she had to go and co-opt an entire doctrine, however apparently laudable some of that institutions values may appear to be.

It wasn't a callous remark, it was a considered one. And I believe it is a genuine warning to parents who push their kids into sport creating a vacuum of life's other elements - and Ms Jaeger was relatively succesful in her tennis life. Some might think that becoming a nun is better than turning to drugs. At a psychological and philosophical level they are interchangeable.

Click to expand...

Good post.
The last two sentences may cause some eyebrows to raise - and may even invite some harsh remarks - but it's essentially true.

I respect what she's doing a whole lot.
But I'd respect her more if she was doing this kind of thing without needing to subscribe to a religion in order to do it.

Click to expand...

There you go Deuce, being the " Curmudgeon ' - if religion is what motivates her and gives her strength to do what she does, then party on. Hel$ Deuce, we have to listen to all your gloom and doom philosophy.

Sadly, she isn't following she believes, she's following what she's been indoctrinated into - no different from if she'd gone to Waco, or the Moonies. Ironically, what she's done is inhuman - in so far as what defines humanity is our capacity to think, and she's subscribed wholesale to a religous corporation. I'm genuinely and profoundly sad that she so lost touch with what's important that she had to go and co-opt an entire doctrine, however apparently laudable some of that institutions values may appear to be.

It wasn't a callous remark, it was a considered one. And I believe it is a genuine warning to parents who push their kids into sport creating a vacuum of life's other elements - and Ms Jaeger was relatively succesful in her tennis life. Some might think that becoming a nun is better than turning to drugs. At a psychological and philosophical level they are interchangeable.

Click to expand...

That is just idiotic, she chose to do what she did and bravo for her choice, what are you - God, like you know all her motivations, maybe she should of been a stripper.

Now you're really delving into semantics. Is it really a problem for you for someone to follow? It's not for me. If I subscribe to the tenants of any religion, then it's a willful following. Your followed indicates that one is led around with a ring in your nose. Patently not true.

She followed something (religion) whose parameters and policies and beliefs were already set and defined, rather than create her own.

Click to expand...

And the problem is? If the policies and parameters of the religion she follows are in line with her personal beliefs, where's the problem? Now, don't get me wrong. I see problems with organized religion. Basically anything man has been given to do by God he's messed up. Why is organized religion any different? However, it's the best game in town to learn and grow in your personal faith.

I view religions in much the same way as I view politics. People who subscribe to one political party or another generally adopt all of the policies and 'beliefs' of that party, rather than form their own independent, individual perspectives.

Click to expand...

Problem is, it's not all hot/cold. I don't know of anyone who agrees with every tenant of a political organization. Anyone. There is disagreement within. That's why political parties refer to "big tents". Just because you belong to a group doesn't mean that you are in lock step with the play book. Bill Maher is on the board of directors of PETA, but he still eats meat. I agree with the goal of NORML, but I don't smoke pot. By your line of reasoning, I should be bonged up all the time.

The same occurs within religions - there are expectations and policies and beliefs that one must adopt and adhere to in order to belong. And when one adopts any policies or beliefs or principles that are not of their own independent creation, the beliefs, principles, etc. are not as strong or as solid. Sort of like doing something out of association and/or expectation rather than doing it because of a strong, sincere personal belief.

Click to expand...

Now this is where we really part ways. First, you make invalid assumptions and generalize across all religions. You've never actually been a member of a church, have you? When I joined the Methodist church, they didn't lock me in a room and put a bright light on me and begin giving me the 3rd degree until I broke. You do not get indoctrinated or brain washed. Normal religion is not being a Moonie or Hari Krishna. You're way off base. You really should walk the walk before doing this kind of speculation.

To do something because it is ONE'S OWN will - not because it is any other's - that is what commands my respect.

Click to expand...

You know, that's why we have free will. And that is exactly what Andrea Jaegar is doing with her life. She made a choice. She gave up the things of the world to follow a spiritual path. I applaud and respect it. How you can assume that she was somehow duped or brainwashed into this is beyond me. And if you refute that you've made the assumption, you've clearly made the implication.

If one possesses a strong and sincere enough personal belief in something, there is no need to join any sort of party or organization in order to pursue that belief.

Click to expand...

Again, you miss the point. What you are describing is anarchy at its core. Why should anyone join any organization? Why join the USTA? I love tennis. I joined the USTA because it facilitates my participation in the sport. I joined league tennis for the same reason. When one joins a church, it is done to facilitate and enhance the growth of your faith. What you're saying is why go to school? You can teach yourself. Yes, you can. But there are two problems with that. First, it's a helluva lot slower if you do it yourself. There are older, more educated people who can help you learn quickly; hence schools. Secondly, without the benefit of textbooks and other folks studies, you could easily draw the wrong conclusion, as I believe you have.

Religion is not doing a goose step down the aisle to your pew. I have had discussions with pastors at my church. I have read the entire Bible. It raised more questions than answered. Before you condemn something, you should probably know what you're condemning from personal experience rather than an assumption made from what you "think" is going on. Is some organized religion bad? Yes. I don't agree with everything that goes on in my church. But, there is more good that comes out of it than bad.

The only thing I resent in your statements is the total ignorance of what really goes on. When I use the word "ignorance" that is not to imply that you are not intelligent. Au contraire, you are patently misinformed.

I think you're missing Deuce's point. It's the nature of religions that they require acceptance of certain tennants "because it has been ordained" rather than because it is of evident or demonstrable benefit to the individual concerned.

For Deuce (and I) to proffer this opinion doesn't require that we sample every religous creed. The perspective isn't based on ignorance, rather it stems from a different perspective (of psychology and philosophy) from your own.

Your suggestion that "more good comes out of it (religion) than bad" is tantamount to suggesting a serial killer is OK because he did some laudable work in the community in between murdering people. Some of the "bad" is intrinsic to the 'nature' of the entity.

I think you're missing Deuce's point. It's the nature of religions that they require acceptance of certain tennants "because it has been ordained" rather than because it is of evident or demonstrable benefit to the individual concerned.

For Deuce (and I) to proffer this opinion doesn't require that we sample every religous creed. The perspective isn't based on ignorance, rather it stems from a different perspective (of psychology and philosophy) from your own.

Your suggestion that "more good comes out of it (religion) than bad" is tantamount to suggesting a serial killer is OK because he did some laudable work in the community in between murdering people. Some of the "bad" is intrinsic to the 'nature' of the entity.

Click to expand...

"acceptance of certain tennants"? She's not a landlord. Are you talking about tenets?

Now you're really delving into semantics. Is it really a problem for you for someone to follow? It's not for me. If I subscribe to the tenants of any religion, then it's a willful following. Your followed indicates that one is led around with a ring in your nose. Patently not true.

Click to expand...

Given the choice between one who follows the beliefs of another individual or group and one who forms his/her own beliefs based on his/her own personal experiences and observations, I respect more the latter.

And the problem is? If the policies and parameters of the religion she follows are in line with her personal beliefs, where's the problem? Now, don't get me wrong. I see problems with organized religion. Basically anything man has been given to do by God he's messed up. Why is organized religion any different? However, it's the best game in town to learn and grow in your personal faith.

Click to expand...

The "best game in town..." according to YOU.
I can accept that this is your belief. Why can you not accept that I do not share this belief?

Problem is, it's not all hot/cold. I don't know of anyone who agrees with every tenant of a political organization. Anyone. There is disagreement within. That's why political parties refer to "big tents". Just because you belong to a group doesn't mean that you are in lock step with the play book. Bill Maher is on the board of directors of PETA, but he still eats meat. I agree with the goal of NORML, but I don't smoke pot. By your line of reasoning, I should be bonged up all the time.

Click to expand...

This paragraph seems to contradict your previous paragraph, in which you state: "If the policies and parameters of the religion she follows are in line with her personal beliefs, where's the problem?"
Which is it?
Further, "toeing the party line" is a well known reality - both in politics and in various forms of business. In the great majority of cases, one must at least pretend to believe what the party - or group - or religion - believes.

Now this is where we really part ways. First, you make invalid assumptions and generalize across all religions. You've never actually been a member of a church, have you? When I joined the Methodist church, they didn't lock me in a room and put a bright light on me and begin giving me the 3rd degree until I broke. You do not get indoctrinated or brain washed. Normal religion is not being a Moonie or Hari Krishna. You're way off base. You really should walk the walk before doing this kind of speculation.

Click to expand...

I fail to see the relevance of your argument.
My problem with religion has far less to do with the various positions (vis-a-vis God, the bible, etc.) that various religions hold. My main problem with religion - as I believe I have made very clear - is the following nature of it.
I have a problem with following, regardless of the party being followed, or the particular beliefs of the party.
If one wishes to be very spiritual and hold a belief in one of the several Gods who populate imaginations, and does so independent of any religion, though I hold no position on the existence of a God, I will respect such an individual more than I will respect one who belongs to a religion, though he hold the same beliefs to the same degree as the more independent person.

There's a big difference my friend. If you can't distinguish between the two then you truly have never been involved. I can tell you that you're missing out on something great.

Click to expand...

The sole difference is in what is being preached. Whether the leader be George Bush or God, the concept of 'follow the leader' is precisely the same. There is no difference at all on this level. As 'officerdibble' wrote: "Some might think that becoming a nun is better than turning to drugs. At a psychological and philosophical level they are interchangeable."
Once again - any following inherently involves a forfeiture of one's independent thoughts and feelings - of one's Nature - to a relatively significant degree - and it is this element which disturbs me.

You know, that's why we have free will. And that is exactly what Andrea Jaegar is doing with her life. She made a choice. She gave up the things of the world to follow a spiritual path. I applaud and respect it. How you can assume that she was somehow duped or brainwashed into this is beyond me. And if you refute that you've made the assumption, you've clearly made the implication.

Click to expand...

One can certainly argue that choosing to follow another is not exactly an exercize in free will.
As for your accusation that I assumed that she was "somehow duped or brainwashed" into this, please point to this supposed assumption of mine. I will tell you honestly that it does not exist.
The reason she has taken the path she has is known only to her - not to you or I. Speaking for myself, however, I do not see any justifiable reason for following or adopting any previously laid out beliefs on such a wide scale.

Again, you miss the point. What you are describing is anarchy at its core. Why should anyone join any organization? Why join the USTA? I love tennis. I joined the USTA because it facilitates my participation in the sport. I joined league tennis for the same reason.

Click to expand...

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the USTA is not an organization whose philosophy and membership is based on a system of beliefs - be they of a spiritual, or any other sort of nature.
This is pure apples and oranges, and really worthy of no further comment.

When one joins a church, it is done to facilitate and enhance the growth of your faith.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is how it is marketed - and it may well be an accurate description. But it still inherently involves following a set of beliefs and principles that were created by another (and let's not get into WHO created them, please, as that is another subject altogether).

What you're saying is why go to school? You can teach yourself. Yes, you can. But there are two problems with that. First, it's a helluva lot slower if you do it yourself. There are older, more educated people who can help you learn quickly; hence schools. Secondly, without the benefit of textbooks and other folks studies, you could easily draw the wrong conclusion, as I believe you have.

Click to expand...

Once again, you are delving into apples and oranges.
Please don't tell me what I am saying. I am saying (writing) what I am writing. If you wish to put your personal 'spin' on what I write, I suppose you are free to do so - but please do not then attribute the perspective to me.
School - as the USTA - is not an entity whose participation is conditional upon accepting a pre-determined set of beliefs. The goal of school is to teach finite things - largely tangible things which can be proven.
Indeed, the current public school system is flawed in that it does require more and more that the participants (students) subscribe to one manner of learning - and if they do not subscribe to this method, they are alienated and ostracized. This is obviously counter-productive, and serves mainly to create followers (which certainly seems to be its goal).
But - again - this is a different subject altogether.
As for your "First, it's a helluva lot slower if you do it yourself. There are older, more educated people who can help you learn quickly; hence schools."...
My personal experience was quite the opposite. I left school at the age of 15 - because I wanted to learn something. And learn things, I have. I found that I learned much more readily and quickly and easily outside of the classroom than I did inside. The main reasons for this, I believe, were that I was able to learn about the subjects in which I held a genuine interest, and learn them at my level and at my chosen pace and along my chosen path, rather than follow a very generalized system that was designed for the mass - i.e. very impersonal. I believe - as many do - that the best teaching/learning (teacher/student) ratio is 1:1. When I left school, my education suddenly became much more personal, as the decisions were based on my personal and individual needs and interests.

Religion is not doing a goose step down the aisle to your pew. I have had discussions with pastors at my church. I have read the entire Bible. It raised more questions than answered. Before you condemn something, you should probably know what you're condemning from personal experience rather than an assumption made from what you "think" is going on. Is some organized religion bad? Yes. I don't agree with everything that goes on in my church. But, there is more good that comes out of it than bad.

Click to expand...

Once again, you are desperately attempting to make this into an argument about theology, when it is quite obviously no such thing. Therefore, as 'officerdibble' noted, I, in order to have a valid perspective on the actual topic of discussion here, possess no need whatsoever to sample any or all religions.

The only thing I resent in your statements is the total ignorance of what really goes on. When I use the word "ignorance" that is not to imply that you are not intelligent. Au contraire, you are patently misinformed.

Click to expand...

And what I resent is your all too typical attitude of being wholly unable to accept a perspective that does not fawn all over the belief in the practice and value of religion.
I made a comment that I would hold more respect for Andrea Jaeger had she done the things she has done on her own, independent of any religion. You (and 'bluegrasser') took this as a personal insult - which reveals more about you than it does about me.
Looking at 'bluegrasser's post previous to my first post, it seems that he, too, belongs and subscribes to a religion. Frankly, both your reactions to my rather benign post is all too typical of the intolerance practiced by many members of various religions.

It has been my experience that those who belong to a religion rarely practice what they preach in this respect. Those who are supposedly pledged to "love thy neighbor", and to live with their God's love and kindness and compassion towards others, are among the most intolerant persons on the planet. They are intolerant of any who do not believe that religion/spirituality/God - however one wishes to label it - is the be-all and end-all of our existence. Based on the frequency with which this occurs, one might even easily conclude that many religions must encourage such intolerance of any who do not believe what they do.
I view this intolerance and defensiveness as being eerily similar to those who take it as a personal insult when I refer to their favorite tennis racquet as "a piece of junk", becoming aggressively defensive, and sending insults my way. All because they cannot accept that I do not agree with their perspective that racquet 'X' is wonderful.
Or because they cannot accept that I do not agree with their perspective that religion is wonderful.

Different perspectives make the world go around, do they not? If you can accept that you and I can have differing perspectives on tennis racquets, why can you not accept that we can have differing perspectives on the value of religion? Why must you insist that if I do not hold the same perspective of religion as do you, I am "patently misinformed"?

Different perspectives make the world go around, do they not? If you can accept that you and I can have differing perspectives on tennis racquets, why can you not accept that we can have differing perspectives on the value of religion? Why must you insist that if I do not hold the same perspective of religion as do you, I am "patently misinformed"?

Click to expand...

First, there was nothing "benign" about your post. Second, when someone implies that my entire belief system is a) wrong and b) fit for morons, then yeah I take it as a personal insult. Whether you chose to admit it or not, the implication was there. As for putting spin on your statements, I think they did that all by themselves.

Deuce, you have made assumptions and regarded them as fact in your diatribe on religion. You assumptions have no basis in fact in my experience with religion. Yet, you continue to present them as fact. It just isn't so.

Take theology out of the equation for a minute. You mean to tell me that you have never been "led" by anyone at any time. Or, an easier question, you are not led by anyone or any thing now? All of the thoughts you have are original in nature? Your signature is from Henry David Thoreau. I can only assume that you read his stuff and it has no effect on shaping your thoughts and beliefs. Your reading is for pure enjoyment? There is no input from any external source which colors your thought? You find yourself in agreement with none?

My point here is that while you denigrate those of us who choose to be led by Christ, you fail to realize that you are led. Where you claim the moral high ground of independent thought and rationalization, you are as guilty as any of being led. Your total non-comformity is in itself condemning you to conformity. Your faux intellectualism is just that, smoke and mirrors. I have no grand illusions about my station in life.

First, there was nothing "benign" about your post. Second, when someone implies that my entire belief system is a) wrong and b) fit for morons, then yeah I take it as a personal insult. Whether you chose to admit it or not, the implication was there. As for putting spin on your statements, I think they did that all by themselves.

Deuce, you have made assumptions and regarded them as fact in your diatribe on religion. You assumptions have no basis in fact in my experience with religion. Yet, you continue to present them as fact. It just isn't so.

Take theology out of the equation for a minute. You mean to tell me that you have never been "led" by anyone at any time. Or, an easier question, you are not led by anyone or any thing now? All of the thoughts you have are original in nature? Your signature is from Henry David Thoreau. I can only assume that you read his stuff and it has no effect on shaping your thoughts and beliefs. Your reading is for pure enjoyment? There is no input from any external source which colors your thought? You find yourself in agreement with none?

My point here is that while you denigrate those of us who choose to be led by Christ, you fail to realize that you are led. Where you claim the moral high ground of independent thought and rationalization, you are as guilty as any of being led. Your total non-comformity is in itself condemning you to conformity. Your faux intellectualism is just that, smoke and mirrors. I have no grand illusions about my station in life.

Click to expand...

The personal nature of your accusations and insults is revealing.

First, there was nothing "benign" about your post. Wow. And you accuse ME of presenting my opinion as fact? Take a look in the mirror.
Since I am the author of my original post, I am the only one who can honestly state the intention of my post - and the intention of my original post was simply to state exactly what I did - nothing more, nothing less. My post was thus benign to me - as I'm sure it was to others. If you did not view it as being benign, it is as the direct result of your involvement with religion, which seems to have resulted in a bias against all those who do not agree with your perspective on religion.

Second, when someone implies that my entire belief system is a) wrong and b) fit for morons, then yeah I take it as a personal insult. Whether you chose to admit it or not, the implication was there. So once again you are speaking for me, telling me that you know exactly what I was thinking. Further, you imply - and this is a clear implication, unlike your accusations - you imply that if I do not "admit" that I implied that "your belief system" is "fit for morons", then I am lying. Well, that's a nice spin to put on things to get people over to 'your side', isn't it...
Too bad it contains not an ounce of truth.
Also, that you take my original post in this thread as a personal insult seems to reveal that you are not as secure in "your belief system" as you'd like to be - much like those who get sore at me for being critical of their chosen tennis racquet. Hell, if you want to disagree - or even disrespect - my choice of clothing, or tennis racquet, or girlfriend - or even my choice to regard religion as I do - I certainly won't feel insulted or threatened. I'd feel that you are entitled to your opinion. I may disagree with it, but it certainly wouldn't cause me any grief, nor would I react defensively/aggressively as you have here.
Further still, what you claim is "your belief system" is not YOUR belief system - it is a system of belief that has been around far longer than you or I have, and that you have merely subscribed to and adopted.

As for putting spin on your statements, I think they did that all by themselves.
See above.

Deuce, you have made assumptions and regarded them as fact in your diatribe on religion. You assumptions have no basis in fact in my experience with religion. Yet, you continue to present them as fact. It just isn't so.
Your middle sentence above is perfectly fine. Had that been your approach - a respectful one of agreeing to disagree - rather than your chosen approach of personal insults and accusations, we would have no problem here.

And what is this weak "you present your assumptions as fact" crap? Quite obviously, perspectives and opinions are just that. How others interpret them is entirely out of my control. Sorry, but I feel no need to be 'politically correct' and preface all of my thoughts and perspectives with "I think that...", or "I believe that...". Intelligent persons recognize opinion as opinion - and you're certainly intelligent enough to recognize this.

Take theology out of the equation for a minute. You mean to tell me that you have never been "led" by anyone at any time. Or, an easier question, you are not led by anyone or any thing now? All of the thoughts you have are original in nature? Your signature is from Henry David Thoreau. I can only assume that you read his stuff and it has no effect on shaping your thoughts and beliefs. Your reading is for pure enjoyment? There is no input from any external source which colors your thought? You find yourself in agreement with none?
Once again, you are taking things to a radical and ridiculous extreme. In my perspective on religion and its followers, I never implied that everyone should live totally without influence in their life. Nor did I imply that this is how I live.
Subtle and occasional influence is part of the learning process; part of the evolution of every human being. But religion and politics is something else altogether. Both require that each member adopt an entire system of belief, and think that way only. This leaves very little or no room for independent thought, or for one's individual Nature. The rule is to follow. Not following is not accepted - as highlighted in the way you are treating me here: I do not follow the belief system that you subscribe to - therefore, you do not accept my perspectives.

As for Henry Thoreau... I can honestly say that reading his writings have not influenced me. I have at times found inspiration and motivation in them - but not to the degree of influencing my thoughts. I do not regard him as my 'guru'. I regard no-one as my 'guru'.
If Thoreau has had any influence on me, it has been with writing. I have found that since I began to read his writings some 13 or so years ago, my writing has improved significantly.
I read Thoreau simply because I find his philosophy and perspectives to be quite similar to my own. And I find the manner in which he expresses his thoughts to be very interesting and unique, thus resulting in my enjoyment.

If I were to do with Thoreau (or any other individual or group) what people do with religions, I would adopt every belief that Thoreau had as my own. Then you could call me a hypocrite - which it seems you are attempting to do in your post above. But this is simply not the case.

Have there been influences in my life? Of course there have been. But, firstly, I have selected them independently - I have never subscribed to the entire 'belief system' of any individual or group. Any influences in my life have been random and sporadic - something here, something there, etc.
Secondly, as I age and mature, I've found that the influences in my life have become less and less - to the point now where they are essentially non-existent. It has been my observation that this occurs with many people as they age - the influences become less and less as one's own personal, unique system of beliefs is developed.

My point here is that while you denigrate those of us who choose to be led by Christ, you fail to realize that you are led. Where you claim the moral high ground of independent thought and rationalization, you are as guilty as any of being led. Your total non-comformity is in itself condemning you to conformity. Your faux intellectualism is just that, smoke and mirrors. I have no grand illusions about my station in life.
Once again - YOU accuse ME of stating MY opinion as fact - then you write this stuff about me and my life, neither of which you know very much about. Once again - take a look in the mirror.
To say such things about me and my life with any degree of accuracy, you'd have to know me and my history a hell of a lot better than you do. And even then, you'd be wrong in stating what you've stated.
As it stands, your paragraph above is merely wishful thinking on your part, with no basis in fact.

But if it makes you feel better to believe it, go ahead - it causes me no grief.

My point here is that while you denigrate those of us who choose to be led by Christ, you fail to realize that you are led. Where you claim the moral high ground of independent thought and rationalization, you are as guilty as any of being led.

Click to expand...

This thread has made interesting reading. I don't wish for a moment to enter into the argument between you and Deuce, but would like to know your thoughts on what appears to me to be a contradiction:

Above, you mention that, we are being led by Christ (or God, in general), whether we realize it or not. Yet, in a previous post, you mentioned that Andrea Yeager was exercising her free will. Isn't this a contradiction? How can one have free will, and be led by God at the same time? If free will is aligned with the will of God, then is it truly free?

Again, feel free to disregard this if it is going to make matters worse for the thread. I find myself unable to believe in a supreme intelligence, but from a purely philosophical point of view, I am interested in knowing how a theist reconciles belief with free will.

Deuce - I have never insulted you. You're getting pretty good with deflecting any argument by saying "it reveals more about you". From my experience, that's beneath you and pretty much an ad hominem. You take the same tact when ever anyone calls you on something like this. I've seen you deflect the argument back on anyone who questions your statements or reasoning. Rather than answer, you deflect.

OK, I got it all wrong. Why don't you explain to me what your take on religion is. I'd be very interested in your take on man's relationship with God. I'd also be very intereted in your depth of knowledge of any religion. Please don't use annecdotal evidence like "I know a Christian who does things that aren't Christian-like."

As to you statements, I read them objectively, as I have all of your posts lo these many years, and arrive at the conclusion that I did. If I was wrong, then I apologize. I await your correction. However, it is clear to me that you have a problem not only with authority, but with any organized group of people who do not share your belief system.

This thread has made interesting reading. I don't wish for a moment to enter into the argument between you and Deuce, but would like to know your thoughts on what appears to me to be a contradiction:

Above, you mention that, we are being led by Christ (or God, in general), whether we realize it or not. Yet, in a previous post, you mentioned that Andrea Yeager was exercising her free will. Isn't this a contradiction? How can one have free will, and be led by God at the same time? If free will is aligned with the will of God, then is it truly free?

Again, feel free to disregard this if it is going to make matters worse for the thread. I find myself unable to believe in a supreme intelligence, but from a purely philosophical point of view, I am interested in knowing how a theist reconciles belief with free will.

Click to expand...

No, it's a valid question. Here is what I know. First, there has to be a recognition of Christ, it's not a matter of him leading us whether we "know it or not". People are free to reject God and live a life apart from Him. The consequences of this are pretty clearly spelled out in the Bible. Free will is also exercised to "give up" your choices and live a life according to the tenants of Christianity. There are different takes on this and that's why there are different denominations. Baptists believe "once saved always saved". Methodists believe that you can achieve perfection. Your "walk" toward this goal is not an easy or direct one. Mistakes will be made, but that is human nature. You should strive toward the goal and do so with an honest and forthright effort.

Deuce - I have never insulted you. You're getting pretty good with deflecting any argument by saying "it reveals more about you". From my experience, that's beneath you and pretty much an ad hominem. You take the same tact when ever anyone calls you on something like this. I've seen you deflect the argument back on anyone who questions your statements or reasoning. Rather than answer, you deflect.

OK, I got it all wrong. Why don't you explain to me what your take on religion is. I'd be very interested in your take on man's relationship with God. I'd also be very intereted in your depth of knowledge of any religion. Please don't use annecdotal evidence like "I know a Christian who does things that aren't Christian-like."

Click to expand...

I don't know if you're intentionally missing the point here, but 'depth of knowledge' of any religion isn't the point. It's the principle of what any religion requires - specifically that one accepts certain things because they have been ordained to be so, rather than because one regards those things as inherently sensible. The nature of religion, and part of the reason indoctrination happens at a young age (baptism is essentially a commitment of the parents to indoctrinate), is that things should be accepted. In much the same way as one can many things (like heroin use, homosexuality, netball, etc.) and decide, on principle, whether it appeals, one can assess religion. There is an argument to say one should try all of these things before rejecting them, but there's a reasonable argument that says one shouldn't.

As to you statements, I read them objectively, as I have all of your posts lo these many years, and arrive at the conclusion that I did. If I was wrong, then I apologize. I await your correction. However, it is clear to me that you have a problem not only with authority, but with any organized group of people who do not share your belief system.

Click to expand...

I haven't read Deuce's posts before (at least I haven't consciously noticed his name if I've read them) but I see no evidence in what he's said in this thread to support your opinion that he has a problem with authority. However, it does beg the question, what is authority? Who has it and how do they acquire it? I choose to live in a democratic country and accept the authority of an elected government (through its legislation). I don't accept any other authority unilaterally; I either accept a particular perspective or I don't, based on its merits. And don't forget that Christianity is a derivative religion - large swathes were borrowed from other religions - Mithras (the Roman God born on December 25 who rose from the dead), so accepting it as authoratitive is a bit like taking one day's newspaper and accepting everything in it, ignoring everything that's contradictory that's been said before, and anything said afterwards (only over a different time-frame, of course).

No, it's a valid question. Here is what I know. First, there has to be a recognition of Christ, it's not a matter of him leading us whether we "know it or not".

Click to expand...

Steady on there! "There has to be a recognition of Christ" - what does that mean? Do we have to acknowledge someone called Jesus born two thousand years ago as the "son of God"? Is that compulsory? He wasn't thought to be that at the time? Not until several decades later when it suited the Romans to suggest it.

People are free to reject God and live a life apart from Him. The consequences of this are pretty clearly spelled out in the Bible.

Click to expand...

There you go again. You have chosen to accept certain things as definitive that others (myself and Deuce included) do not. It's fine that you choose to believe something, but it's not fine that you presuppose those that don't agree have rejected something. I can't reject something that I believe doesn't exist.

Free will is also exercised to "give up" your choices and live a life according to the tenants of Christianity. There are different takes on this and that's why there are different denominations. Baptists believe "once saved always saved". Methodists believe that you can achieve perfection. Your "walk" toward this goal is not an easy or direct one. Mistakes will be made, but that is human nature. You should strive toward the goal and do so with an honest and forthright effort.

Click to expand...

You strive towards whatever you want! But recognise that it's your faith, your belief system, and NOT, unequivocally NOT a truth. If it was a truth you wouldn't need faith. And if you'd been born in a Muslim country you'd have a very different set of beliefs; so either God has serious branding issues, or religions are environmental constructs, where the delineating factor is humans not deities.

I don't know if you're intentionally missing the point here, but 'depth of knowledge' of any religion isn't the point. It's the principle of what any religion requires - specifically that one accepts certain things because they have been ordained to be so, rather than because one regards those things as inherently sensible.

Click to expand...

Well apparently some knowlege is necessary as ordination is only done for members of the clergy. Lay members don't have to be ordained to do anything. This is my point. You're making statements which have no basis in fact, only what you think is going on. Now, I don't know if you are intentionally misuing the word, but depth of knowledge is an issue. Otherwise, there is a serious inclination to "invent" facts.

The nature of religion, and part of the reason indoctrination happens at a young age (baptism is essentially a commitment of the parents to indoctrinate), is that things should be accepted. In much the same way as one can many things (like heroin use, homosexuality, netball, etc.) and decide, on principle, whether it appeals, one can assess religion. There is an argument to say one should try all of these things before rejecting them, but there's a reasonable argument that says one shouldn't.

Click to expand...

Your choice of both language and example is inflammatory and should be considered nothing but bait. Parents indoctrinate? Come on now. I might agree if you were to agree that parents must indoctrinate their children on every issue until they are of age to make some decisions themselves. The church recognizes the age of 12 as a time when children can either join the church or not. It's not something they have to do. I've seen children who didn't. I was one. Your examples of herion and homosexuality are bait totally off base. Herion is not even in the same ballpark as religion and its choice has an entirely different set of consequences. If you're implying that homosexuality is a choice, then you have a different set of issues. I, for one, don't buy into that in the least.

I haven't read Deuce's posts before (at least I haven't consciously noticed his name if I've read them) but I see no evidence in what he's said in this thread to support your opinion that he has a problem with authority. However, it does beg the question, what is authority? Who has it and how do they acquire it? I choose to live in a democratic country and accept the authority of an elected government (through its legislation). I don't accept any other authority unilaterally; I either accept a particular perspective or I don't, based on its merits. And don't forget that Christianity is a derivative religion - large swathes were borrowed from other religions - Mithras (the Roman God born on December 25 who rose from the dead), so accepting it as authoratitive is a bit like taking one day's newspaper and accepting everything in it, ignoring everything that's contradictory that's been said before, and anything said afterwards (only over a different time-frame, of course).

Click to expand...

You sound like an expert on Superstition. Do you consider Christmas a made-up holiday? And, I'm sorry, but what you post on the internet has very little creedence with what I've read. And, again, your choice of wording leaves a lot to be desired.

Steady on there! "There has to be a recognition of Christ" - what does that mean? Do we have to acknowledge someone called Jesus born two thousand years ago as the "son of God"? Is that compulsory? He wasn't thought to be that at the time? Not until several decades later when it suited the Romans to suggest it.

There you go again. You have chosen to accept certain things as definitive that others (myself and Deuce included) do not. It's fine that you choose to believe something, but it's not fine that you presuppose those that don't agree have rejected something. I can't reject something that I believe doesn't exist.

Click to expand...

Gee, so you don't reject the notion of fairies? Again, your choice of wording leaves something to be desired.

Not to belittle Andrea's accomplishments on the behalf of those unfortunate enough to have needed her help, but, Cheech and Chong said it best, "I used to be all messed up on drugs. Now I'm all messed up on the Lord". As a card carrying atheist, I will only say that religion is responsible for MUCH of the sadnes and madness in the world today.

Well apparently some knowlege is necessary as ordination is only done for members of the clergy. Lay members don't have to be ordained to do anything. This is my point. You're making statements which have no basis in fact, only what you think is going on. Now, I don't know if you are intentionally misuing the word, but depth of knowledge is an issue. Otherwise, there is a serious inclination to "invent" facts.

Click to expand...

The English language is a wonderful thing. If there was the smallest hint of humour in any of your post I would think you were pulling my plonker with your suggestion that I'd misused the word "ordained". I realise facts are scary things when you lean heavily on blind faith, but LOOK IT UP (in a dictionary, not the bible).

Your choice of both language and example is inflammatory and should be considered nothing but bait. Parents indoctrinate? Come on now. I might agree if you were to agree that parents must indoctrinate their children on every issue until they are of age to make some decisions themselves. The church recognizes the age of 12 as a time when children can either join the church or not. It's not something they have to do. I've seen children who didn't. I was one. Your examples of herion and homosexuality are bait totally off base. Herion is not even in the same ballpark as religion and its choice has an entirely different set of consequences. If you're implying that homosexuality is a choice, then you have a different set of issues. I, for one, don't buy into that in the least.

Click to expand...

I wasn't the first person to suggest that religion was an opiate equivalent. Not that someone else having said something makes it true (well, not for me), but there are clear parallels. Is homosexuality a choice? You and I are free to experiment with it before we pass judgement if we want to (although I'm fairly sure you're not my type). Lots of straight guys engage in homosexuality in prisons (at least half of them voluntarily).

You sound like an expert on Superstition. Do you consider Christmas a made-up holiday? And, I'm sorry, but what you post on the internet has very little creedence with what I've read. And, again, your choice of wording leaves a lot to be desired.

Click to expand...

Am I an expert on superstition? Not especially. Is Christmas a made-up holiday? Undoubtedly. Absolutely, categorically, yes. Most of the Christian festival dates were taken from other religions. Did you think Jesus birth took place on December 25th? No, no, no. He was born in the summer. Be it a Roman god's day or a pagan party to celebrate surviving the winter solstice. Now I realise that you're not going to take my word for it, but if you're interested just go and ask some questions of other people who have studied the evolution of christianity. Couldn't hurt to ask some questions and establish some facts, could it?

I cannot speak to your intentions - but I feel that referring to my "faux intellectualism", among other unflattering accusations, as well as your general insistence that I am ignorant on this topic qualify as insulting.

You're getting pretty good with deflecting any argument by saying "it reveals more about you". From my experience, that's beneath you and pretty much an ad hominem. You take the same tact when ever anyone calls you on something like this. I've seen you deflect the argument back on anyone who questions your statements or reasoning. Rather than answer, you deflect.

Click to expand...

I believe I have responded to most of the points you brought up - as evidenced by my quoting you and responding directly underneath.
You, however, have all but totally chosen not to address or respond to my points in at least two posts now. And that's fine - but you shouldn't go accusing me of not addressing your points. One need only look over our respective posts to see that I've addressed far more of your points than you have mine.

OK, I got it all wrong. Why don't you explain to me what your take on religion is. I'd be very interested in your take on man's relationship with God. I'd also be very intereted in your depth of knowledge of any religion. Please don't use annecdotal evidence like "I know a Christian who does things that aren't Christian-like."

Click to expand...

Once again, you are desperately attempting to make this a debate about theology - presumably because you feel you'd have the advantage in such a case. But this discussion has never been theology based - and you know it. You're certainly intelligent enough to know it. Problem is, you're also intelligent enough to realize that you stand a better chance of 'winning' this debate if it is switched over to the theological arena.
But, like 'officerdibble', I'm not going to bite.

As to you statements, I read them objectively, as I have all of your posts lo these many years, and arrive at the conclusion that I did. If I was wrong, then I apologize. I await your correction.

Click to expand...

I have already corrected you on this subject, and explained myself. I've no need to do it twice.

However, it is clear to me that you have a problem not only with authority, but with any organized group of people who do not share your belief system.

Click to expand...

I "have a problem" only with an authority which I believe is either fictional, or in some way incompetent. I do not blindly accept that anyone (or any entity or group) in a position of authority is inherently right and correct. I respect individuals, not positions. I do question authority figures likely more than most do. But this does not mean that I "have a problem with authority" - it simply means that I don't have a problem questioning authority when I feel it is justified.
I do not - as you seem to be suggesting - question authority simply for the sake of questioning authority, or, as you suggested in another post in this thread, for the purpose of exercizing my "non-conformity". I react spontaneously, by instict, not by design.

As for your claim that I have a problem with "with any organized group of people who do not share your belief system" ... is it not YOU who is not accepting that I see little value in your belief system? (which, as I previously mentioned, is not truly YOUR belief system - it is not of your creation - but rather a system that was designed by others long before you were even a thought, and which you have merely adopted in place of developing your own unique belief system.)
I, by contrast, have no trouble accepting that you believe in a particular religion and its teachings. This doesn't threaten me in the least. I can know this of you, and still like and respect you. But can you say the same of your perspective of me now?

Although I see far less value in religion than do you, I can entirely accept that you are a religious person who belongs to a particular religion, whose belief system you value and have adopted. I can accept this without losing any like or respect for you. But you have demonstrated in this thread that you cannot accept that I do not value religion as you do.

I ask that you enlighten me.

Click to expand...

You have spent the last several posts telling me that this is impossible, insisting that you are in no way open to it.

The English language is a wonderful thing. If there was the smallest hint of humour in any of your post I would think you were pulling my plonker with your suggestion that I'd misused the word "ordained". I realise facts are scary things when you lean heavily on blind faith, but LOOK IT UP (in a dictionary, not the bible).

Alright, spanky, no problem there. Hoever, it's pretty clear that you a) don't have a teenager in your house, b) don't have experience with children (your own), c) didn't read all of my posts, or d) all of the above.

a) Ordain by your usage would also imply that parents can prearrange marriages for their children. It just ain't so. Teenagers are by and large the hardest to control of any age group. Why? Because they start to think for themselves. My daughter is 16 and my wife and I have decided that by the time they're ready to leave the house to go to college, you're ready for them to leave the house.

b) being around other people's children and your own are two different things. If you do have children and they follow your edicts to the letter, you're either a tyrant or a liar.

c) Had you read my posts previously, you'd have seen that I indicated that the church, including some non-Christian faiths, recognize an age at which children must decide for themselves if they intend to be a part of the church. Thy must make a commitment themselves to become members of the faith. Before you pull out the ORDAIN card again, don't bother. I was one of those kids who, at 12, decided church was not for me. My parents weren't too happy with this, but the pastor at our church said it was my decision. I joined the church much later in life.

d) speaks for itself.

I hate getting sucked into these discussions. It is a no-win situation for all concerned. You have your beliefs and I have mine. I would only mention the old saying "there are no atheists in fox holes". It seems that we have life too good these days. The other thing of note, which you probably don't know about Christianity is that on our death bed, you can equal the life of any life-long Christian by professing your faith; not to another, but to God. You can be on the same footing as anyone who lived a life-long walk in the faith. My only problem with that is the negative influence you have on others who won't have that same luxury.

The other thing of note, which you probably don't know about Christianity is that on our death bed, you can equal the life of any life-long Christian by professing your faith; not to another, but to God. You can be on the same footing as anyone who lived a life-long walk in the faith.

Click to expand...

That is an interesting concept. So what you are saying is you can eat, drink and be merry, doing whatever you want throughout life and on your death bed, you can profess your faith, to God, and you are good to go. Sounds pretty easy doesn't it. Can you tell me what verse in the King James Bible where it specifically says this?

That is an interesting concept. So what you are saying is you can eat, drink and be merry, doing whatever you want throughout life and on your death bed, you can profess your faith, to God, and you are good to go. Sounds pretty easy doesn't it. Can you tell me what verse in the King James Bible where it specifically says this?

Click to expand...

Why the * King James Bible* ? - It's been some years since this cat has been to church, but lets start off with the thief on the cross - " This day you'll be with me in paradise." How about this verse - " If we confess our sins, he's faithful to forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrightousness, or " there's none rightous, no not *one." - in other words, in Christianity it's not good works that gets you there but embracing the sacrafice ( Christ.)

Why the * King James Bible* ? - It's been some years since this cat has been to church, but lets start off with the thief on the cross - " This day you'll be with me in paradise." How about this verse - " If we confess our sins, he's faithful to forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrightousness, or " there's none rightous, no not *one." - in other words, in Christianity it's not good works that gets you there but embracing the sacrafice ( Christ.)

Hey, how's that for what many consider an apostate.

Click to expand...

I feel the King James version has been less corrupted by modern man than the umteen new versions that are out there. The thief on the cross never professed that Jesus was the Christ, he recogonized him as a just man and felt that he didn't deserve what he got where they, the thieves did. How about "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven". The will, my friend, is keeping the commandments and showing your faith in him by doing the works of him, which I'm sorry to say, isn't possible to do on your death bed. It is true that through the atonement of Christ all are saved from a spiritual death, but one man's glory can differ from another

I feel the King James version has been less corrupted by modern man than the umteen new versions that are out there. The thief on the cross never professed that Jesus was the Christ, he recogonized him as a just man and felt that he didn't deserve what he got where they, the thieves did. How about "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven". The will, my friend, is keeping the commandments and showing your faith in him by doing the works of him, which I'm sorry to say, isn't possible to do on your death bed. It is true that through the atonement of Christ all are saved from a spiritual death, but one man's glory can differ from another

Click to expand...

I'll bet you're one of those fundamental Baptists - you know -' Don't drink, don't chew, don't go with girls that do." BTW, what is the will of the * Father*- isn't it to believe on him who I've sent. I bet I've forgot more scripture than you know. Keep working son, work, work, it's all about *works.*

I'll bet you're one of those fundamental Baptists - you know -' Don't drink, don't chew, don't go with girls that do." BTW, what is the will of the * Father*- isn't it to believe on him who I've sent. I bet I've forgot more scripture than you know. Keep working son, work, work, it's all about *works.*

Click to expand...

Nope, I'm not a Baptist. And, I'm definatley not going to get into the age old debate of Faith and Works, because honestly... they go hand in hand. How can you say you have faith but not do the works? And, you should do the works because you do have faith. But, sounds like you have a handle on that. Good luck on that death bed confession.

The other thing of note, which you probably don't know about Christianity is that on our death bed, you can equal the life of any life-long Christian by professing your faith; not to another, but to God. You can be on the same footing as anyone who lived a life-long walk in the faith.

Click to expand...

Once again, what scripture and verse can this theory be found? Must be in those new translations correct? I think you got that theory from Carl the greens keeper in Caddyshack

I doubt that. But let me ask you this, who had the authority to re-translate the scriptures? Talk about political motivation. Check out 2-Peter 2:1-3, and then tell me about the motivation

Click to expand...

If you're against translations, then you certainly must be reading the Hebrew and Greek scriptures since these are the "untranslated" texts. When you reference KJV, remember that the V stands for "version". Jesus and the disciples didn't write the New Testament in English, so any version you're reading other than the orginal text in Hebrew and Greek must be a translation. The KJV was as politicized a version as there ever has been.

Once again, what scripture and verse can this theory be found? Must be in those new translations correct? I think you got that theory from Carl the greens keeper in Caddyshack

Click to expand...

Bluegrasser did a good job with it. A basic tenant of Christianity is that all you need do is ask for forgiveness. Do you agree? Does it say anywhere that you have to do A, B, C and then ask? Do you have to be a certain age? It does not. All you need do is ask for forgiveness and it's yours. Salvation is at hand. The current circumstance of this salvation is not important as long as one comes with a willing spirit.

If you're against translations, then you certainly must be reading the Hebrew and Greek scriptures since these are the "untranslated" texts. When you reference KJV, remember that the V stands for "version". Jesus and the disciples didn't write the New Testament in English, so any version you're reading other than the orginal text in Hebrew and Greek must be a translation. The KJV was as politicized a version as there ever has been.

Click to expand...

When did I say I was against translations? Obviously it has to start with a translation. What I said was, and if you re-read what I wrote, that the KJV is less corrupted than todays re-translations. And, I said, who gave the AUTHORITY to re-translate the scriptures today?? And, since the re-translations also didn't come from the original Hebrew and Greek scriptures, they were re-translated from translated scriptures, then wouldn't there be more corruption in those translations?

Bluegrasser did a good job with it. A basic tenant of Christianity is that all you need do is ask for forgiveness. Do you agree? Does it say anywhere that you have to do A, B, C and then ask? Do you have to be a certain age? It does not. All you need do is ask for forgiveness and it's yours. Salvation is at hand. The current circumstance of this salvation is not important as long as one comes with a willing spirit.
Your ad hominem was unnecessary and unwarranted by the way.

Click to expand...

I don't agree that all you have to do is ask for forgiveness, IF <-- (and look at that word before you come down on me) you haven't put forth any effort in the way confessing, repentance and restitution? What did Christ say to the woman... Go and sin no more. Asking is one thing, but if all you are doing is asking and not doing anything to correct, then it means nothing.

When did I say I was against translations? Obviously it has to start with a translation. What I said was, and if you re-read what I wrote, that the KJV is less corrupted than todays re-translations. And, I said, who gave the AUTHORITY to re-translate the scriptures today?? And, since the re-translations also didn't come from the original Hebrew and Greek scriptures, they were re-translated from translated scriptures, then wouldn't there be more corruption in those translations?

Click to expand...

By your thinking, the KJV wouldn't have existed either. The only reason King James' name is included is that he rescinded the law that made translating the Bible punishable by death. I'm sure there were those in 1611 who shared your conviction equally, except their ire was directed at the King James Version of the Bible. They probably saw the same heresy in it that you do in other translations.

Also don't overlook the fact that many of the pronouns used in the KJV were changed from the original text to a masculine pronoun.

There are new translations which are taken directly from the original text. Among them is the translation I use, the NCV. I don't have it in front of me, but will gladly reference when I get home.

I don't agree that all you have to do is ask for forgiveness, IF <-- (and look at that word before you come down on me) you haven't put forth any effort in the way confessing, repentance and restitution? What did Christ say to the woman... Go and sin no more. Asking is one thing, but if all you are doing is asking and not doing anything to correct, then it means nothing.

Click to expand...

All that is needed is a repentant heart. If you truly repent, you will sin no more. Repentance is not dependant on living 30 years or 30 minutes after the act. What did Christ say to the theif on the cross? What resitution did he make? None. He repented and confessed.

By your thinking, the KJV wouldn't have existed either. The only reason King James' name is included is that he rescinded the law that made translating the Bible punishable by death. I'm sure there were those in 1611 who shared your conviction equally, except their ire was directed at the King James Version of the Bible. They probably saw the same heresy in it that you do in other translations.

Also don't overlook the fact that many of the pronouns used in the KJV were changed from the original text to a masculine pronoun.

There are new translations which are taken directly from the original text. Among them is the translation I use, the NCV. I don't have it in front of me, but will gladly reference when I get home.

Click to expand...

Here is some information I found regarding the versions of the Bible that may help you to understand better;

The Old Testament of the King James Bible was translated from the Masoretic Text. This text was in use during the time of Christ and He quoted from them many times. If the Masoretic Text was acceptable to Christ then it certainly should be accepted by every child of God. This text was kept pure by the Hebrew priests who were given the responsibility of caring for it.
The "other Bibles" which are so prevalent today are as dependable as quicksand. They will vary even from printing to printing as the constantly changing whims of man directs. However, each new Bible will continue down the same path of confusion and error. You cannot produce good fruit from a rotten tree.